I agree, but you know better than I that some homosexuals claim they very much can consent. How would you answer them?
Homosexual Wayne Besen on BEL
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
I agree, but you know better than I that some homosexuals claim they very much can consent. How would you answer them?
Again, I agree. But in your opinion does that make the act morally wrong to have with a child that is not harmed or forced per se, but is tricked or seduced into complying? Or is it merely a legal issue - that is, a minor can't legally consent?
The Graphite
New member
Poppycock. Plenty of children have consented, and young girls have even gotten pregnant as pre-teens by having very consentual sex with very consentual boys. Iirc, I think I have heard of young girls getting pregnant at least as young as 9 having consentual sex.
So, that is certainly not a valid answer to his question.
Children are generally in a position of subordination to adults, so it could be argued that an adult having sex with a child is an inherently coercive act. Even if it were legal for adults to have sex with children, it wouldn't change that fact and it would still be wrong.
The Graphite
New member
When you claim that it doesn't matter that numerous leaders in the gay community agree on promoting pedophilia, and that this somehow isn't representative of the homosexual community, even when it's coming from Allyson Publications and even Out magazine, itself, you lose all credibility.
You make it sound like every homosexual in the world would have to agree in order for it to be "representative" of the gay community.
When many homosexual leaders openly advocate this in agreement with each other, and other homosexuals fail ... nay, refuse to rebuke them for it, then it certainly indicates it is representative of a significant part of the homosexual community.
And it is especially ludicrous for Besen to claim that there's no such thing as a homosexual molestor, inferring that men who molest boys are not doing so in a homosexual way. Utterly preposterous, and he instantly loses all credibility with that claim.
So you're taking a somewhat moral stance against it. Good for you. Now write a letter to NAMBLA, would you?
It depends upon your definition of consent. I mean it as informed consent. Which is defined as having the knowledge and maturity to make such a decision.
When I think "children" I'm thinking five, six years old. In that case no form of true, reasonable consent is possible. Older kids, sexualized too early (as with nine year old girls, as you say), it happens. Still WRONG, and it still isn't exactly consent...it's more the expression of damage done by evil adults.
Why would they be anymore likely to listen to me than to listen to you? Why don't you write a letter to NAMBA?
I'm not homosexual, you are, so they'd have to listen to you over me. Besdies, don't you all have secret handshakes or winks or something?
Agape4Robin
Member
:jawdrop
lease tell me that you do not honestly believe that statement. Consentual? :think: At age 9? Here are just a few of the things a 9 year old is just beginning to develop.Physically a 9 year old is just beginning to develop small muscle coordination. Like using scissors to cut on the line.
Emotionally, they become self-absorbed and introspective. Feelings may be more accute if a child begins puberty at this age. Which I will agree has been documented, but is not an indicator that a child is able to understand the intricacies of sex. They just aren't capable of thinking that through. It is physiolocially impossible. :idunno:
Plus they lack experience in that area to underdstand what they are consenting to. Getting pregnant is not tantamount to consenting.:nono:
Shame on you.:mmph:
Why would pedophiles have to listen to homosexuals anymore than heterosexuals? And why would you assume that most homosexual people have anything to do with them?
AlfredTuring
New member
You'd be okay with letting someone take a magazine and publishing company for straight people and have that represent the default view of all straight people? Or for any group of more than 10 million people -- a magazine... ? I somehow doubt a Majority of gay people even know what Allyson publications is; much less agree with everything written in it...
". . . and even Out magazine, itself, . . ." -- it's a magazine! I don't get it. I've never even heard of this magazine, and yet I'm supposed to want to criminalize what very well could be genetically determined behavior (not 'bringing up' that issue, just saying, it's still unknown) because of something said in it (and others, yes, of course. Same as I'm sure terrible things have been said in straight magazines and Christian magazines, and all manner of magazines in fact).
Two Questions for AlfredTuring...
Two Questions for AlfredTuring...
Graphite, thanks for listing those examples of homosexual leaders and leading publications tolerating and even promoting pedophilia.
Men who care about children should have zero tolerance for the promotion of sex with children.
Notice that AlfredTuring didn't mention that Wayne Besen himself refused to condemn Alyson Publications for promotion of their pediophila titles.
That is direct evidence from Besen himself of a filthy degree of tolerance. Amazon.com for example has disassociated from publishers that condemn homosexuality, but has refused to do so even after Christian campaigns asking them to stop selling actual pro-pedophila books and promoting publishers like Alyson.
Regarding the case against homosexual 'leaders,' this is the most damning regarding Besen himself: "Besen insisted that only the gay fringe tolerated sex with children so Bob asked if he had heard of Alyson Publications of Boston, a leading homosexual publisher. Yes... but when asked to condemn Alyson for publishing Paedophilia: The Radical Case, with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys, Besen himself refused!"
AlfredTuring, birds of a feather. I assert that in widespread disagreement over morality, your rebellion against God naturally moves you to side with others in rebellion against God.
Alfred, two questions (Boolean logic may be helpful here :
Do you condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
Should Besen condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
Two Questions for AlfredTuring...
Graphite, thanks for listing those examples of homosexual leaders and leading publications tolerating and even promoting pedophilia.
Men who care about children should have zero tolerance for the promotion of sex with children.
Notice that AlfredTuring didn't mention that Wayne Besen himself refused to condemn Alyson Publications for promotion of their pediophila titles.
That is direct evidence from Besen himself of a filthy degree of tolerance. Amazon.com for example has disassociated from publishers that condemn homosexuality, but has refused to do so even after Christian campaigns asking them to stop selling actual pro-pedophila books and promoting publishers like Alyson.
Regarding the case against homosexual 'leaders,' this is the most damning regarding Besen himself: "Besen insisted that only the gay fringe tolerated sex with children so Bob asked if he had heard of Alyson Publications of Boston, a leading homosexual publisher. Yes... but when asked to condemn Alyson for publishing Paedophilia: The Radical Case, with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys, Besen himself refused!"
AlfredTuring, birds of a feather. I assert that in widespread disagreement over morality, your rebellion against God naturally moves you to side with others in rebellion against God.
Alfred, two questions (Boolean logic may be helpful here
:Do you condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
Should Besen condemn Alyson Publications for their promotion of pedophila?
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
Revelation,
Forget the fact that the simple mechanics of homosexual sex is - let's be honest - totally against nature. Certain body structures are clearly designed to perform certain functions that others were not designed for. No need to go into further detail there, you know what I mean.
My understanding is that most exclusive (non-bi) homosexuals were exposed to it by being tricked and seduced or molested outright at a relatively early, pre-adult age. The age range varies widely but it happens when one would still be considered a minor. Whether the victim gained any physical pleasure from the experience or not is beside the point - although many homosexuals claim they did so. They were still immature, incapable of accurately processing the feelings resulting from what happened, or the implications of the act itself, as an adult could (and even normal adults can sometimes find themselves confused in similar situations). Thus it would be understandable that much confusion and psychological warping could result; the result would be an adult homosexual who is truly convinced that he was "always this way," even thought that may not be true at all, and their committment to homosexuality is really the expression of victimization and deep damage. Is that possible?
Forget the fact that the simple mechanics of homosexual sex is - let's be honest - totally against nature. Certain body structures are clearly designed to perform certain functions that others were not designed for. No need to go into further detail there, you know what I mean.
My understanding is that most exclusive (non-bi) homosexuals were exposed to it by being tricked and seduced or molested outright at a relatively early, pre-adult age. The age range varies widely but it happens when one would still be considered a minor. Whether the victim gained any physical pleasure from the experience or not is beside the point - although many homosexuals claim they did so. They were still immature, incapable of accurately processing the feelings resulting from what happened, or the implications of the act itself, as an adult could (and even normal adults can sometimes find themselves confused in similar situations). Thus it would be understandable that much confusion and psychological warping could result; the result would be an adult homosexual who is truly convinced that he was "always this way," even thought that may not be true at all, and their committment to homosexuality is really the expression of victimization and deep damage. Is that possible?
Just Tom,
I appreciate constructive criticism. And I'm trying to understand your point. Perhaps you could re-post and clarify this. Of course on the radio, I try to use arguments that the listener can quickly understand (I don't always succeed), and arguments that listeners can adopt and use elsewhere. If successful, this requires that the arguments are not only accurate, but somewhat simple.
Thanks Tom,
-Bob Enyart
The problem with your argument is you used the word "design". While teleology may be your answer to the world, metaphysical naturalism is generally how I explain most of the natural processes in the world.
Your understanding is wrong and is based on outdated psychoanalytic explanations for the origins of homosexuality which has largely been the position of NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. It is an organization, founded by Christian psychologists, under the assumption that homosexuality is a regressive mental disorder. However, NARTH as yet has provided any substantial evidence to support their claims.
Sexuality is incredibly complex in humans and there are many facets to consider. Here is an interesting documentary that 60 minutes did that explored some of the more recent scientific evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zPh97qYd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bfVvo3dd8&feature=related
The structure of the anus and rectum is naturally suited for sexual intercourse, in your view?
My view is that some human beings have found it pleasurable to have anal sex. In males, that pleasure is largely the result of its structure, since the prostate gland is easily stimulated via anal penetration.
Some human beings have found it pleasurable to inject plant opiates into their veins, too. Feels good, I'm told, but isn't natural.
Answer the question: Is the anus and rectum of a male as readily self-lubricated and penetrable as a female's vagina, assuming the receptive partners are equally desirous of sex? Does the anus naturally and spontaneously lend itself to such activity, as the vagina does?
Further, does the anus and rectum hold up to repeated, prolonged and vigorous penetration without any negative consequences, as a receptive vagina can?
Also, why's there such a thing as Gay Bowel Syndrome and other disorders of the butt, if men sodomizing one another is so natural?
While we on the topic: why does semen trigger an foreign immune response in receptive men, but not in women?
- Status